Okaloosa County BOCC — July 19, 2016 — LGFR application — reading text

26,000 = 41,000 cy/yr, less 35,000 cy/yr of fill placement]. The net erosion loss (not including fill placement) to the east of the inlet between the jetty and R27 (approximately 10,000 feet) has been approximately -54,000 cy/yr [-50,000 cy/yr - 4,000 cy/yr of fill placement].” Sediment Budget: [abbreviated version from the IMIP] The 2000 inlet management plan, based on the study by Taylor Engineering (1999), determined a net east to west longshore transport at the inlet. The 1999 sediment budget established the need to bypass 82,000 cy/yr to the west of East Pass to offset the impact of the inlet. This sediment budget was based upon a seven-year time period between 1990 and 1997 and without the benefit of beach profile data west of the inlet or bathymetric data north of the U.S. Highway 98 bridge. Due to the inherent problems with the development of the 1999 sediment budget, the adopted inlet management plan called for updating the sediment budget by the end of 2005. Previously, most researchers estimated an east to west net longshore transport in northwest Florida ranging generally between 52,000 and 91,000 cy/yr (Gorsline, 1966; Stone 1990; USAED, Mobile, 1963). However, Levin (1983) noted geological evidence of a localized eastward sediment transport at East Pass. Historically, the east end of Santa Rosa Island grew from west to east as seen by the southwest to northeast orientation of beach ridges and the eastward migration of the inlet. The 1871 survey showed the inlet migration was eastward two miles from its location today (refer to History section). Based upon wave data obtained by the Corps of Engineers, Morang (1992) suggested a drift nodal point existed at East Pass and that frequent drift reversals occurred leading to transport in both directions. The wave data collected between 1987 and 1990 revealed a predominant wave direction from the southwest. This wave direction would provide a net longshore transport to the east. Most recently, the City of Destin and the Department contracted a study by Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., to update the inlet sediment budget (CP&E, 2010). The study area included the entire 14-mile stretch of coast from FDEP reference monument R-1, at the west end of the beach community of Okaloosa Island, to FDEP reference monument R-50 at the east Okaloosa County line. The actual area of direct inlet impact was determined to be approximately 10,000 feet to the east and to the west of East Pass. For the time period between March 1996 and July 2007, CP&E found a change from the earlier 7-year period (1990-1997) determined in the 1999 study. Between 1996 and 2007, the trend of westward longshore transport to the west of the inlet generally continued; however, east of the inlet, the net direction of longshore transport was predominately eastward. This recent period of west to east longshore transport in the vicinity of the inlet has resulted in a small net gain immediately west of the inlet and a significant loss along Holiday Isles to the east of the inlet. Estimated annual quantity of beach quality sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved jetty or inlet channel: 82,000 cy In the 1999 East Pass Inlet Management plan, Taylor Engineering reported that the annual net longshore sediment transport was between 58,000 and 82,000 cy. The updated 2010 Inlet Management Plan suggests volume and direction of the longshore sediment transport varies and greatly depends on dredging and storm activity. The adopted bypassing objective remains as 82,000 cy/year (minimum), as adopted in 2000. As such, the estimated quantity of beach quality sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved inlet channel is estimate as 82,000 cy/year. Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(a), the annual quantity of 82,000 cy of beach quality sand reaching the updrift boundary of the improved inlet channel divided by 20,000 cy per year awards 4.1 points for the “Sand Reaching the Inlet” ranking criteria. Balancing the sediment budget: Annual bypassing objective adopted by the IMP or the SMBP or as determined by a department approved study: 82,000 cy/year The annual average of bypassed material (cubic yards) since adoption of a bypass objective: 64,140 cy/year Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(b), the annual average bypassing volume to be placed of 64,140 cy on adjacent eroding shoreline, divided by the annual bypassing objective of 82,000 cy multiplied by 20, awards 15.6 points for the “Balancing the Sediment Budget” ranking criteria. Cost effective alternatives: Unmet annual bypassing objective using material from within the inlet system: 17,860 cy/year Proposed increase in annual bypassing of material from within the inlet system: 20,000 cy/year (minimum) With reference to the September 2012 USACE hydrographic data of the East Pass Federal Navigation Channel, approximately 260,000 cy of material can be dredged and bypassed to adjacent beaches in a one-time nourishment. Upon investigation of the feasibility of alternatives (i.e. channel re-alignment or widening, sand traps, and structure configuration), the quantity of sand to be bypassed should far exceed the current yearly deficit. Again, the goal of the study is to determine methods to reduce the cost of frequent maintenance dredging within the inlet. Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(c), the proposed annual increase in bypassing of 40,000 cy (minimum) of material within the inlet system, divided by the unmet annual bypassing of 17,860 cy, multiplied by 10, awards 10 points (maximum) for the “Cost Effectiveness” ranking criteria. Local Sponsor Financial and Administrative Commitment Rule Is funding for the project in the local sponsor’s 10-year comprehensive financial plan? Please provide copy or web link to the plan. Yes Local match will come from 1st percentage of the Tourist Development Tax  Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(d), the funding for the project is/is not in the local sponsor’s 10-year comprehensive plan, which awards 0 or 2 points for the “10-Year Comprehensive Financial Plan” ranking criteria. Is funding provided through a source established by referendum? Yes Please provide a copy or web link to the referendum. Local match will come from 1st percentage of the Tourist Development Tax Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(d), local sponsor provides funding for the beach project via a funding source established by referendum or legislative authority, which awards 0or2 points for the “Designated Funding Source” ranking criteria. Is funding provided by a third party? No What is the percentage of total project costs provided by the third party? ______ Please provide a copy of the cost sharing agreement. ______ Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(d), local sponsors who provide additional funding from a third party, other than the federal government, shall receive 1 point for a 10 percent reduction or 2 points for a 25 percent reduction of the non-federal share obtained from a third party , which awards 0 or 2 points for the “Third Party Funding” ranking criteria. Quarterly Report Compliance: FY2015/2016 End Date Report Sent Compliant Qtr 1 (Sept) 10/31/2015 N/A N/A Qtr 2 (Dec) 01/31/2016 N/A N/A Qtr 3 (Mar) 04/30/2016 N/A N/A Qtr4 (June) 7/31/2016 N/A N/A Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(d), the local sponsor has a 100 percent compliance record for submitting quarterly reports correctly and on time over the previous year, which awards 2 points for the “Quarterly Reporting Requirements” ranking criteria. Are there active federal and state permits for the project? Yes (federal channel dredging only) Federal permit #:SAJ-2007-04911 Expiration date:__May 11, 2026__ State permit #: 028799-003-JC Expiration date:__Feb 26, 2030___ Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(d), the local sponsors hold active state and federal permits for the proposed project, which awards 1 point for the “Active Permits” ranking criteria. Have local funds been secured for the project? Yes Explain: FY17 Tourist Development Department budget approved by Tourist Development Council Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(d), the local sponsors have entered into an interlocal agreement with regional partners for the purpose of joint inlet management, which awards 1 point for the “Interlocal Agreement for Inlet Management” ranking criteria. In order to acquire state funding, a resolution from the local sponsor must be provided by the application deadline which declares: • Support from the Sponsor for the Proposed Project • Willingness to serve as the Local Sponsor • Ability to provide the full Local Cost Share • And the source of the funding Please attach copy of resolution. To be provided following adoption in August 2016. Previous State Commitment: Has the Department previously cost shared, reviewed, and approved a feasibility or design phase for this project? Yes (both previous inlet management plans, 1999 and 2010). Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(e), the Department has previously cost shared, reviewed, and appoved a feasibility or design phase, which awards 1 point for the “Previous Cost Sharing in Feasibility or Design” ranking criteria. Will this project enhance or increase the longevity of a previously-constructed project? How? Yes. This project will reduce the maintenance frequency of East Pass federal navigation channel maintenance dredging and increase the longevity of the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project by providing a highly cost-effective borrow area (sand source) for future beach re-nourishment. The reduced beach re-nourishment maintenance costs will allow increased longevity to the beach project, providing increased storm protection, recreation opportunities, increased property values, and critical habitat. Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(e), the project has previous state commitment and enhances or increases the longevity of a previously constructed project within the inlet influence, which awards 1 point for the “Enhanced Longevity” ranking criteria. Has a previously approved appropriation for this project phase been released in its entirety by the local sponsor due to the project timelines? Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(e), the project has previous state commitment and previously approved appropriations for a project phase could not be encumbered and were released in their entirety by the local sponsor due to the project timelines, which awards 1 point for the “Previously Restored Shoreline” ranking criteria. Inlet management plans: Does the project have an existing Inlet Management Plan or completed Inlet Management Study accepted by the Department that defines the sediment budget, quantifies the volumetric bypassing objective and contains specific management strategies? Yes Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(f)(1), the project has an existing Inlet Management Plan or completed Inlet Management Study accepted by the Department that